Calculating Energy for Circular Orbit to Launching Satellites

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the energy required to launch a satellite into a circular orbit at a specified altitude above the Earth's surface. The problem involves concepts from gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy, specifically focusing on the conservation of energy principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the change in potential and kinetic energy involved in launching a satellite. The original poster attempts to calculate these changes but encounters difficulties with signs and initial conditions. Some participants question the assumptions about initial kinetic energy and suggest clarifying the energy contributions needed for the launch.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with participants providing feedback on calculations and assumptions. The original poster has made corrections based on suggestions and reports achieving the correct answer after re-evaluating their approach. There is an ongoing exploration of the energy dynamics involved in reaching orbit.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of information regarding the method of reaching orbit, which is crucial for understanding the energy calculations. There is also mention of a previous thread that may contain relevant insights.

bray d
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] energy for circular orbit

This one should be easy for you guys, I've been workin on it for a while and need pointed in the right direction. For starters, here's the question:

Neglecting Earth's rotation, show that the energy needed to launch a satellite of mass m into circular orbit at altitude h is [(GMm)/R]*[(R+2h)/(2*(R+h))]
where G is 6.67x10^-11, M=mass of the earth, R=radius of the earth

I believe the problem has to do with conservation of energy, so I found the change in potential energy between the surface of the Earth and height h. I think I need to find the change in kinetic energy from the surface and height h then add U and K to find the total energy. I did this and came up with an incorrect answer. Where am I going wrong?


P.S. nice site!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
hmmm, welp that link confirms my thought process...right? anyways here's what I've been getting:

first I found the change in potential energy:

U= -GMm(1/r1-1/r2)
= -GMm(1/R-1/(R+h))
= -GMm/R+GMm/(R+h)

Then I tried to find the change in kinetic energy:

to find v^2 in K=(1/2)mv^2 I equated the gravitational force to rotational acceleration since the gravity is the force that causes the acceleration:

GMm/r^2=mv^2/r

solving for v^2 I got:

v^2 = GM/r

Plugging that into the kinetic energy equation I got:

K = (1/2)GMm/r

therefor the change in kinetic energy would be the kinetic energy at the surface minus the kinetic energy at height h:

K = GMm/2R - GMm/2(R+h)

then to find total energy I added U and K:

E = U + K
= GMm/(R+h) - GMm/R + GMm/2R - GMm/2(R+h)

I then simplified by creating common denominators and adding like terms:

E = (2GMm-GMm)/2(R+h)+(-2GMm+GMm)/2R
= GMm/2(R+h) - GMm/2R

wow, that was not fun to type lol
 
1) There is NO initial kinetic energy at the surface. It's not in orbit at the surface, it's just sitting there. 2) Check the signs on your changes in kinetic and potential energy. Both should be positive. Other than that, well done really.
 
Last edited:
that's what's confusing me. I initially thought there would be no initial kinetic energy, but then though about how it got to orbit. in order to get into orbit there must be some kind of kinetic energy right? so I figured there would have to be more initial kinetic energy then there was at orbit.

yep, don't know where that negative came from in the delta U equation. I'll rework it and give an update. thanks for the reply!
 
You aren't told how it would get to orbit. Presumably a rocket or something. The energy provided by that unknown thing is what you want to compute. Update fast, I'm fading. It worked ok for me though. I got the answer you were looking for.
 
ok, I understand. Yep, I corrected the sign in the delta U equation and took K = 0 at the surface. this gave me the correct answer after some algebraic manipulation. thanks again for the reply, it's greatly appreciated. have a nice night
 
You too. Nice work.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
4K